Murder without motive -- the killing of Munir

Murder without motive -- the killing of Munir

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Why was Munir murdered? That question is unresolved.
A fact-finding team, in its report to the president said Munir
was killed because of his pro-democracy and rights activism. That
may have been an underlying reason, but hardly a solid motive for
murder in an era of reformasi where censure and criticism are the
rule rather than an exception.

Why then assassinate an activist, who was effectively going on
sabbatical?

It is important to establish that while the team's
investigation did not conclusively accuse anyone, their vivid
report strongly suggests the presence of a conspiracy.

Central to this was the presence of Pollycarpus Budihari
Priyanto -- already named a suspect by police -- who hastily
boarded the Jakarta-Singapore leg of Munir's flight to Amsterdam
under the guise of urgent Garuda Airways business.

It was Pollycarpus who allegedly moved Munir to a new seat on
the GA974 flight. Telephone records show that Pollycarpus also
contacted Munir before takeoff in Jakarta.

Investigators further found records of over 30 telephone calls
between Pollycarpus to numbers either held by a then deputy chief
of the National Intelligence Agency (BIN) or the BIN office
before and after Munir's murder on Sept. 7.

The BIN officer in question, however, denied any knowledge of
any conversation.

Suspicion of Pollycarpus' role as an "agent" was reinforced by
his presence in Aceh in May 2003 during the early phase of
martial law. A witness told The Jakarta Post that Pollycarpus,
while in Aceh, was in close contact with a confirmed BIN
operative.

None of these details, however, proves the involvement of the
intelligence community, either on an institutional or an
individual basis. Nevertheless, it does support the belief that
the murder was well-planned and not some simple homicide.

And, as suggested by the fact-finding team, the use of arsenic
and venue of an airplane -- which would limit medical assistance
-- further supports assumptions of a conspiracy.

Though the question of "how?" seems more revealing, the "why?"
part remains a mystery given that, as established earlier, Munir
no longer posed an immediate threat.

At best he may have included some damning, albeit obsolete,
information in his thesis during for his study in Holland.

Revenge may have been a motivator. Munir, in the past, was a
thorn in the side of many powerful men, especially those in
military circles.

But such a grudge would have had to fester for years. Can
vengeance survive for such a long time? If so, it would have
needed to involve someone, who is still in power given the
complexity of the assassination.

Another scenario, albeit somewhat conspiratorial, involves
political intrigue.

Munir's murder occurred just ahead of the second round of the
presidential election. It would have been easy to predict that
news of his murder would have initially been blamed on "forces"
linked to the military given Munir's perceived anti-military
views.

But this hypothesis does not stand up because it was clear
that the murder was specifically designed with discretion in
mind.

While it was not explicitly mentioned in the fact-finding
team's report, their findings of the "compartmentalized" nature
of the intelligence community's work suggests much more than is
being said.

The compartmentalized structure -- just like cell systems for
terrorists networks -- allows for individuals within the
community to work autonomously and exploit resources without
direct oversight or overlapping responsibility.

It is well-known that the intelligence community got used to
the habit of being an extension and supporter of the Soeharto
regime's power. It can be a habit that is hard to break. A case
of, "I did, because I can".

Despite changes in government since 1998, the intelligence
community has continued to work in relative autonomy, sometimes
beyond direct executive oversight.

Witnesses have told the fact-finding team that Munir was a
target of operations for several years. These allegations have
also been denied by a former intelligence official during
questioning.

If it were true, it would have been too blatant -- tantamount
to institutional suicide -- to murder such a noted rights
activist at the height of his prominence.

Nevertheless, by 2004 democracy was at a fever pitch and the
torch of rights activism was being carried by a wider crowd.
Pioneers like Munir could take time away from the limelight and
engage in personal study.

Ironically this, perhaps, proved to be a fateful window of
opportunity. Those who committed the murder did it, simply
because they now could.

The infamous Watergate scandal on the burglary and wiretapping
of the Democratic Party's campaign headquarters in 1972 by U.S.
intelligence officers is an example of just how paranoia, the
habit of subversion and political sabotage led to a compulsion
for subterfuge.

Then U.S. President Richard Nixon was under no immediate
threat of losing the election to Democratic Party candidate
George McGovern. But still he engaged in illicit practices, which
had apparently been a long political habit.

He did it because he could.

Tenacious reporting and investigative work in the Watergate
scandal eventually showed that in a nation of laws, no one is
above the law. Hopefully, the Munir case will prove the same of
Indonesia.